Read access logs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: no credentials or network calls, suitability for viewer scopes, truncation of the event list, and the deliberate absence of query strings, headers and bodies. These are exactly the traits an agent needs to reason about result completeness and data sensitivity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by routing and behavioral constraints. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description fully covers behavior, safety and sibling routing. The one shortfall for a six-parameter, zero-coverage filter tool is the absence of any guidance on the filter parameters an agent must supply to scope the query.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across six parameters (app, who, limit, since, until, decision), and the description never explains any of them — no filter semantics, no time-format hint for since/until, no behavior note for limit or the decision enum. The only partial signal is an implied cap via 'The event list is limited', which does not compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return individual local access events') plus ordering ('newest first') and the payload characteristics ('all-match counts and a truncation flag'). It explicitly contrast-distinguishes from the sibling access_summary, so an agent can select between them without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Names the selection condition directly: use access_log to inspect specific events, use access_summary for counts without event records. It also clarifies that summaries cover all matches while the event list is truncated, which tells the agent when this tool under-reports.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.